
til»ttHi»itl{|Jltlui'lli:illJitHiMtltilltN 




Class 



. E..1 



T (oU 



Book .Rj^- 



ADDRESS 



BY 



ELIHU ROOT 

As Temporary Chairman of 
New York Republican Convention 



FEBRUARY 15th, 1916 




EPDUTTON&COMRWY 

68lf I fTHAVEN UE 
NEW-YQgtC.i 

ESTABLISHED igsZ. 






Z3^ 



ADDRESS BY ELIHU ROOT 

as Temporary Chairman of New York Republican Convention 

February 15th, 1916 

Gentlemen of the Convention: 

We are entering upon a contest for the election of 
a president and the control of government under con- 
ditions essentially new in the experience of our country. 
The forms which we are about to follow are old and 
familiar; but the grounds for action, the demand of 
great events for decision upon national conduct, the 
moral forces urging to a solution of vaguely outlined 
questions, the tremendous consequences of wisdom or 
folly in national policy, all these are new to the great 
mass of American voters. Never since 1864 has 
an election been fraught with consequences so vital to 
national life. All the ordinary considerations which 
play so great a part in our presidential campaigns are 
and ought to be dwarfed into insignificance. 

For the first time in twenty years we enter the field 
as the party of opposition, and indeed it is a much 
longer time, for in 1896, in all respects save the tariff, 
the real opposition to the sturdy and patriotic course 
of President Cleveland was to be found in the party 
that followed Mr. Bryan. It is our duty as the opposi- 
tion to bring the Democratic party to the bar of public 



judgment, to put it upon its defense so far as we see 
just and substantial grounds to criticise its conduct, 
and to ask the voters of the country to decide whether 
that party, organized as it is, represented as it has 
been since it came into power, has shown itself com- 
petent to govern the country as it should be governed 
and whether its spirit, its policies, and its performance 
are the best that the American people can do in the 
way of popular self government. 

In the field of domestic affairs some facts relevant 
to these questions had already been ascertained when 
in August, 1914, the great European War began. 
During the year and a half of Democratic con- 
trol of government in a period of profound peace 
there had been a steady decrease in American 
production, in exports and in revenues, and a steady 
increase in imports and expenditures. Enterprise 
had halted. New undertakings no longer made 
their appearance. Established business ceased to in- 
crease its facilities or enlarge its fields of action. The 
great productive industries of the country were 
laboring under a misfit tariff" devised by the Demo- 
cratic party in a spirit of distrust and hostility 
towards American business enterprise ; and, with the 
disturbance of these great basic industries, transporta- 
tion and commerce had become dull and despondent. 
The Democratic tariff had been framed upon an avowed 
repudiation of all protection however moderate and 
reasonable; and because all protection was repudiated. 



practically all information from competent witnesses 
as to the effect new provisions would have upon busi- 
ness was rejected. The Tariff Commission created 
under Republican legislation to ascertain the facts 
upon which tariff laws should be based was driven 
out of office and no substitute was provided. With self 
satisfied complacency the Democratic Congress assumed 
that the theory of a tariff for revenue only was a satis- 
factory substitute for knowledge of business conditions 
in the framing of a customs law, and they made a tariff 
which stopped the development of business along all 
the great lines of production and also failed to produce 
revenue. The men who represented the Democratic 
party in Washington had been so long declaiming 
against those whom they considered the beneficiaries of 
the protective tariff that their hostility extended to 
American business itself and to the men who conducted 
it. All profitable enterprise was under suspicion. Gov- 
ernment had no sympathy with it, no desire to pro- 
mote it, no sense of responsibility to protect it. There 
was a nervous dread lest somebody should make money. 
Envy of business success and the phrases of the 
demagogue were potent elements in the framing of 
legislation and the administration of the laws. 

It was with just cause that the enterprise of the 
country halted, timid and irresolute, because it felt and 
feared the hostility of government. 

The great war has not changed the lesson which 
we had already learned when it began. It has but 



obscured further demonstration. It has caused an 
enormous demand for some things which the United 
States is able to produce in large quantities, and in 
these lines of production there have been extensive 
employment of labor, great exports and a great influx 
of money. But this is temporary, it must soon cease, and 
when the factories have stopped and their laborers are 
no longer employed w^e must deal with a situation for 
which wise forethought should make provision. More 
important still, the war has paralyzed the peaceful in- 
dustries of all Europe, and has stopped that competitive 
foreign production which in July, 1914, had already 
entered American markets to supersede American prod- 
ucts under the Tariff Law of 1913. The war has thus 
given to American products an immunity from compe- 
tition far more effective than any possible protective 
tariff. But that is temporary, and when the war is over, 
when foreign production begins again, the American 
market, compared with impoverished Europe, will be 
more than ever before the object of desire and effort, 
and we shall become the dumping ground of the world 
to the destruction of our own industries unless that is 
prevented by a wise and competent government. 

But it is not from domestic questions that the most 
difficult problems of this day arise. The events of the 
last few years have taught us many lessons. We have 
learned that civilization is but a veneer thinly cover- 
ing the savage nature of man; that conventions, 
courtesies, respect for law, regard for justice and 



humanity, are acquired habits, feebly constraining the 
elemental forces of man's nature developed through 
countless centuries of struggle against wild beasts 
and savage foes. We have been forced to perceive 
that a nation which fulfills the conditions on which 
alone it can continue to exist, which preserves its in- 
dependence and the liberty of its people and makes its 
power a shield for the rights of its citizens, must deal 
with greed and lust of conquest and of power and 
indifference to human rights. We have seen that 
neither the faith of treaties nor the law of nations 
affords protection to the weak against the aggression 
of the strong. We have begun to realize that America, 
with its vast foreign trade, with its citizens scattered 
over the whole earth, with millions of aliens upon 
its soil, with its constantly increasing participation 
in world wide efforts for the benefit of mankind, 
with a thousand bonds of intercourse and intimacy 
uniting it to other nations, is no longer isolated; that 
our nation can no longer live unto itself alone or stand 
aloof from the rest of mankind; that we must play 
some part in the progress of civilization, recognize some 
duties as correlative to our rights. For the first time 
within the memory of men now living, the international 
relations of the United States, long deemed of trifling 
consequence, are recognized as vital. How can this 
nation, which loves peace and intends justice, avoid the 
curse of militarism and at the same time preserve its 
independence, defend its territory, protect the lives 



and liberty and property of its citizens? How can we 
prevent the same principles of action, the same policies 
of conduct, the same forces of military power which 
are exhibited in Europe from laying hold upon the 
vast territory and practically undefended wealth of 
the new world? Can we expect immunity? Can we 
command immunity? How shall we play our part in 
the world? Have selfish living and factional quarrel- 
ing and easy prosperity obscured the spiritual vision 
of our country? Has the patriotism of a generation 
never summoned to sacrifice become lifeless? Is our 
nation one, or a discordant multitude? Have we still 
national ideals ? Will anybody live for them ? Would 
anybody die for them? Or are we all for ease and 
comfort and wealth at any price? Confronted by such 
questions as these and the practical situations which 
give rise to them, is the country satisfied to trust itself 
again in the hands of the Democratic party? 

When a president and secretary of state have been 
lawfully established in office the power of initiative in 
foreign affairs rests with them. The nation is in 
their hands. Theirs is the authority and theirs the 
duty to adopt and act upon policies, subject to such 
laws as Congress may enact within constitutional 
limits. Parliamentary opposition can take no affirma- 
tive step; can accomplish no affirmative action. The 
expression of public opinion can do nothing except as 
it produces an influence upon the minds of those officers 
who have the lawful power to conduct our foreign rela- 



tions. Their policy is the country's pohcy because it 
is they who are authorized to act for the country. 
While they are working out their policy all opposition, 
all criticism, all condemnation, are at the risk of weak- 
ening the case of one's own country and frustrating 
the efforts of its lawful representatives to succeed in 
what they are seeking to accomplish for the country's 
benefit. An American should wish the representatives 
of his country to succeed whatever may be their party 
unless there be wrong doing against conscience. How- 
ever much he may doubt the wisdom of their course he 
should help them where he can and refrain from plac- 
ing obstacles in their way. But when the president and 
secretary of state have acted, and seek a new grant of 
power, they and the party which is responsible for them 
must account for their use of power to the people from 
whom it came, and the people must pass judgment upon 
them, and then full and frank public discussion becomes 
the citizen's duty. 

The United States had rights and duties in Mexico. 
More than forty thousand of our citizens had sought 
their fortunes and made their homes there. A thou- 
sand millions of American capital had been invested 
in that rich and productive country, and millions of 
income from these enterprises were annually returned 
to the United States not merely for the benefit of the 
investors, but for the enrichment of our whole country 
and all its production and enterprise. But revolution 
had come, and factional warfare was rife. Americans 



had been murdered, American property had been 
wantonly destroyed, the Hves and property of all Amer- 
icans in Mexico were in danger. That was the situation 
when Mr. Wilson become president in March, 1913. 
His duty then was plain. It was, first, to use his powers 
as president, to secure protection for the lives and 
property of Americans in Mexico and to require that 
the rules of law and stipulations of treaties should be 
observed by Mexico towards the United States and 
its citizens. His duty was, second, as the head of a 
foreign power to respect the independence of Mexico, 
to refrain from all interference with her internal 
afifairs, except as he was justified by the law of nations 
for the protection of American rights. The President 
of the United States failed to observe either of those 
duties. He deliberately abandoned them both and fol- 
lowed an entirely dififerent and inconsistent purpose. 
He intervened in Mexico to aid one faction in civil strife 
against another. He undertook to pull down Huerta and 
set Carranza up in his place. Huerta was in possession. 
He claimed to be the constitutional president of Mexico. 
He certainly was the de facto president of Mexico. 
Rightly or wrongly, good or bad, he was there. From 
the north Carranza and a group of independent chief- 
tains were endeavoring to pull down the power of 
Huerta. President Wilson took sides with them in pull- 
ing down that power. In August, 1913, through Mr. 
John Lind, he presented to Huerta a communication 
which was in substance a demand that Huerta should 



retire permanently from the government of Mexico. 
When Huerta refused, the power of the United States 
was appHed to turn him out. Foreign nations were 
induced to refuse to his government the loans of 
money necessary to repair the ravages of war and 
establish order. Arms and munitions of war were 
freely furnished to the Northern forces and withheld 
from Huerta. Finally the President sent our army 
and navy to invade Mexico and capture its great 
sea port, Vera Cruz, and hold it and throttle 
Mexican commerce until Huerta fell. The govern- 
ment of the United States intervened in Mexico to 
control the internal affairs of that independent coun- 
try and to enforce the will of the American President 
in those aft'airs by threat, by economic pressure, and by 
force of arms. Upon what claim of right did this 
intervention proceed? Not to secure respect for Amer- 
ican rights; not to protect the lives or property of 
our citizens; not to assert the law of nations; not 
to compel observance of the law of humanity. On 
the contrary, Huerta's was the only power in Mexico 
to which appeal could be made for protection of life or 
property. That was the only power which in fact did 
protect either American or European or Mexican. It 
was only within the territory where Huerta ruled that 
comparative peace and order prevailed. The territory 
over which the armed power of Carranza and Villa and 
their associates extended was the theatre of the most 
appalling crimes. Bands of robbers roved the country 



10 

with unbridled license. Americans and Mexicans alike 
were at their mercy, and American men were 
murdered and American women were outraged 
with impunity. Thousands were reduced to poverty 
by the wanton destruction of the industries through 
which they lived. The payment of blackmail was 
the only protection of property against burnings 
and robbery. No one in authority could or would give 
protection or redress. It had become perfectly plain 
that the terms upon which both Carranza and Villa 
held their supporters, were unrestricted opportunity and 
license for murder, robbery and lust. Yet the govern- 
ment of the United States ignored, condoned, the 
murder of American men and the rape of American 
women and destruction of American property and in- 
sult to American officers and defilement of the Amer- 
ican flag and joined itself to the men who were guilty 
of all these things to pull down the powxr of Huerta. 
Why? The President himself has told us. It was 
because he adjudged Huerta to be a usurper; because 
he deemed that the common people of Mexico ought 
to have greater participation in government and 
share in the land; and he believed that Carranza 
and Villa would give them these things. We must all 
sympathize with these sentiments, but there is nothing 
more dangerous than misplaced sentiment. Of all men 
in this world, the man who had vested in him the execu- 
tive power of the United States was least at liberty 
to sit in judgment of his own motion upon the title of 



11 

a claimant to the Mexican presidency or to reform 
the land laws of Mexico. 

The results of this interference were most unfor- 
tunate. If our government had sent an armed force 
into Mexico to protect American life and honor we 
might have been opposed but we should have been 
understood and respected ^by the people of Mexico, be- 
cause they would have realized that we were acting 
within our international rights and performing a 
nation's duty for the protection of its own people; 
but when the President sent an armed force into 
Mexico to determine the Mexican presidential suc- 
cession he created resentment and distrust of motives 
among all classes and sections of the Mexican people. 
When our army landed at Vera Cruz, Carranza him- 
self, who was to be the chief beneficiary of the act, 
publicly protested against it. So strong was the resent- 
ment that he could not have kept his followers other- 
wise. When Huerta had fallen the new government 
which for the day had succeeded to his place peremp- 
torily demanded the withdrawal of the American 
troops. The universal sentiment of Mexicans required 
that peremptory demand, and the troops were with- 
drawn. Still worse than that, the taking of Vera Cruz 
destroyed confidence in the sincerity of the American 
government in Mexico because every intelligent man 
in Mexico believed that the avowed reason for the act 
was not the real reason. The avowed purpose was to 
compel a salute to the American flag. I will state the 



12 

circumstances: On the ninth of April, 1914, a boat's 
crew from the Dolphin landed at a wharf in Tampico 
to take off supplies. The use of that wharf had been 
prohibited, and the Mexican officer in charge of the 
wharf put the crew under arrest, but a higher officer 
ordered him to hold the boat's crew at the wharf and 
await instructions. Within an hour and a half the crew 
was set free. No injury or indignity was suffered 
except the fact of the arrest. Immediate amends were 
made. The Mexican officer in command at Tampico 
apologized; General Huerta's government apologized; 
the officer who made the arrest was himself arrested 
and his punishment promised. The admiral in com- 
mand of our fleet at Tampico demanded more public 
amends through a salute to our flag, but there ensued 
a discussion as to the facts and as to the character 
of the salute which the circumstances demanded, 
the number of guns, and how, if at all, the salute 
was to be returned. While that discussion was 
pending and avowedly because of that incident the 
American government presented a twenty-four hour 
ultimatum and landed an armed force and captured the 
City of Vera Cruz. Three hundred Mexicans were 
reported killed ; seventeen United States Marines were 
killed and many were wounded. At that very time Mr. 
Bryan, with the President's approval, was signing 
treaties with half the world agreeing that if any con- 
troversy should arise it should be submitted to a joint 
commission and no action should be taken until after 



13 

a full year had elapsed. This controversy arose 
on the ninth of April, and on the twenty-first 
of the same month V^era Cruz was taken. Several 
times the troops of Carranza and Villa had arrested 
and imprisoned American consular officers and torn 
down the American flags from the consulates and 
trampled them in the mire, with indescribable indig- 
nities. The proofs were in our hands and no attention 
was paid to them. JMany times soldiers of the United 
States, in uniform, on duty, had been shot and killed 
or wounded across the border by soldiers of Carranza 
and Villa. More than fifty of them have been killed in 
this way and no attention has been paid to it. The 
demand of a salute to the flag was never heard of 
again after Vera Cruz was captured. There is not an 
intelligent man in Mexico who believes that the dispute 
about the salute was the real reason for the capture of 
Vera Cruz. Is there one here who doubts that the 
alleged cause was but a pretext and that the real cause 
was the purpose to turn Huerta out of office? The 
people of Mexico, who saw their unoffending city 
captured by force of arms, three hundred of its people 
slain, their soil violated, a foreign flag floating over 
their great seaport, upon what they felt to be a false 
pretense, were misled into imputing a more sinister 
purpose still — to secure control of Mexico for the 
United States; and they believed that when the Amer- 
ican troops departed, that purpose was abandoned 
through fear. With the occupation of Vera Cruz the 



14 

moral power of the United States in Mexico ended. 
We were then and we are now hated for what we did 
to Mexico, and we were then and we are now despised 
for our feeble and irresolute failure to protect the lives 
and rights of our citizens. No flag is so dishonored 
and no citizenship so little worth the claiming in Mexico 
as ours. And that is why we have failed in Mexico. 

Incredible as it seems, Huerta had been turned out 
by the assistance of the American government with- 
out any guaranties from the men who were to be 
set up in his place, and so the murdering and burn- 
ing and ravishing have gone on to this day. After 
Huerta had fallen and the Vera Cruz expedition had 
been withdrawn, President Wilson announced that no 
one was entitled to interfere in the affairs of Mexico; 
that she was entitled to settle them herself. He dis- 
claims all responsibility for what happens in Mexico 
and contents himself with a policy of Watchful Wait- 
ing. But who can interfere in a quarrel and help some 
contestants and destroy others and then absolve himself 
from responsibility for the results? It is not by force 
of circumstances over which we had no control, but 
largely because the American administration intervened 
by force to control the internal aff'airs of that country 
instead of asserting and maintaining American rights 
that we have been brought to our present pass of con- 
fusion and humiliation over Mexico. 

And for the death and outrage, the suffering and 
ruin of our own brethren, the hatred and contempt for 



15 

our country, and the dishonor of our name in that 
land, the Administration at Washington shares re- 
sponsibility with the inhuman brutes with whom it 
made common cause. 

When we turn to the Administration's conduct of 
foreign affairs incident to the great war in Europe we 
cannot fail to perceive that there is much dissatisfac- 
tion among Americans. Some are dissatisfied for 
specific reasons, some with a vague impression that our 
diplomacy has been inadequate. Dissatisfaction is not 
in itself ground for condemnation. The best work of 
the diplomatist often fails to receive public approval 
at the time and must look to a calm review in the dis- 
passionate future for recognition of its merit. The 
situation created by the war has been difficult and try- 
ing. Much of the correspondence of the State Depart- 
ment, especially since Mr. Lansing took charge, has 
been characterized by accurate learning and skillful 
statement of specific American rights. Every one in 
the performance of new and unprecedented duties is 
entitled to generous allowance for unavoidable short- 
comings and errors. No one should be held to the 
accomplishment of the impossible. The question 
whether dissatisfaction is just or unjust is to be de- 
termined upon an examination of the great lines of 
policy which have been followed and upon considering 
whether the emergencies of the time have been met 
with foresight, wisdom and decisive courage. If these 
are lacking as guides, all the learning of the institutes 



16 

and the highest skill in correspondence are of little 
avail. 

A study of the Administration's policy towards 
Europe since July, 1914, reveals three fundamental 
errors. First, the lack of foresight to make timely 
provision for backing up American diplomacy by actual 
or assured military and naval force. Second, the for- 
feiture of the world's respect for our assertion of rights 
by pursuing the policy of making threats and failing 
to make them good. Third, a loss of the moral forces 
of the civilized world through failure to truly interpret 
to the world the spirit of the American democracy in 
its attitude towards the terrible events which accom- 
panied the early stages of the war. 

First, as to power. 

When the war in Europe began, free, peaceable 
little Switzerland instantly mobilized upon her frontier 
a great army of trained citizen soldiers. Sturdy little 
Holland did the same, and, standing within the very 
sound of the guns, both have kept their territory 
and their independence inviolate. Nobody has run 
over them because they have made it apparent that the 
cost would be too great. 

Great, peaceable America was farther removed 
from the conflict, but her trade and her citizens traveled 
on every sea. Ordinary knowledge of European affairs 
made it plain that the war was begun not by accident 
but with purpose which would not soon be relinquished. 
Ordinary knowledge of military events made it plain 



17 

from the moment when the tide of German invasion 
turned from the Battle of the Marne that the conflict 
was certain to be long and desperate. Ordinary 
knowledge of history — of our own history during the 
Napoleonic Wars — made it plain that in that conflict 
neutral rights would be worthless unless powerfully 
maintained. All the world had fair notice that, as 
against the desperate belligerent resolve to conquer, 
the law of nations and the law of humanity interposed 
no eflfective barriers for the protection of neutral 
rights. Ordinary practical sense in the conduct of 
affairs demanded that such steps should be taken that 
behind the peaceable assertion of our country's rights, 
its independence and its honor, should stand power, 
manifest and available, warning the whole world that 
it would cost too much to press aggression too far. 
The Democratic government at Washington did not 
see it. Others saw it and their opinions found voice. 
Mr. Gardner urged it; Mr. Lodge urged it; Mr. Stim- 
son urged it; Mr. Roosevelt urged it; but their argu- 
ment and urgency were ascribed to political motives; 
and the President described them with a sneer as being 
nervous and excited. 

But the warning voices would not be stilled. The 
opinion that we ought no longer to remain defenseless 
became public opinion. Its expression grew more gen- 
eral and insistent, and finally the President, not lead- 
ing, but following, has shifted his ground, has reversed 
his position, and asks the country to prepare against 



18 

war. God grant that he be not too late. But the 
Democratic party has not shifted its ground. A large 
part of its members in Congress are endeavoring now 
to sidetrack the movement for national preparedness; 
to muddle it by amendment and turn it into channels 
which will produce the least possible result in the in- 
crease of national power of defense. What sense of 
effectiveness in this effort can we gather from the 
presence of Josephus Daniels at the most critical post 
of all — the head of the Navy Department; when we 
see that where preparation has been possible it 
has not been made; when w^e see that construction of 
war ships already authorized has not been pressed, and 
in some cases after long delay has not even been begun. 
If an increase of our country's power to defend 
itself against aggression is authorized by the present 
Congress it must be largely through Republican votes, 
because the representatives of the Republican party 
in Washington stand for the country no matter who 
is president; and all the traditions and convictions of 
that party are for national power and duty and honor. 

As to the policy of threatening words without 
deeds. 

When Germany gave notice of her purpose to sink 
merchant vessels on the high seas without safeguard- 
ing the lives of innocent passengers, our government 
replied on the tenth of February, one year ago, in the 
following words: 



19 

"The Government of the United States * * * 
feels it to be its duty to call the attention of the 
Imperial German Government, with sincere respect and 
the most friendly sentiments but very candidly and 
earnestly, to the very serious possibilities of the course 
of action apparently contemplated under that proclama- 
tion. 

"The Government of the United States views those 
possibilities with such grave concern that it feels it 
to be its privilege, and indeed its duty in the circum- 
stances, to request the Imperial German Government 
to consider before action is taken the critical situation 
in respect of the relations between this country and 
Germany which might arise were the German naval 
forces, in carrying out the policy foreshadowed in the 
Admiralty's proclamation, to destroy any merchant 
vessel of the United States or cause the death of Amer- 
ican citizens. 

"* * * If such a deplorable situation should 
arise, the Imperial German Government can readily 
appreciate that the Government of the United States 
would be constrained to hold the Imperial German 
Government to a strict accountability for such acts of 
their naval authorities and to take any steps it might 
be necessary to take to safeguard American lives and 
property and to secure to American citizens the full 
enjoyment of their acknowledged rights on the high 
seas." 



20 



By all the usages and traditions of diplomatic 
intercourse those words meant action. They informed 
Germany in unmistakable terms that in attacking and 
sinking vessels of the United States and in destroy- 
ing the lives of American citizens lawfully traveling 
upon merchant vessels of other countries, she would 
act at her peril. They pledged the power and courage 
of America, with her hundred million people and her 
vast wealth, to the protection of her citizens, as dur- 
ing all her history through the days of her youth and 
weakness she had always protected them. 

On the 28th of March, the passenger steamer 
Falaba was torpedoed by a German submarine, and an 
American citizen was killed, but nothing was done. On 
the 28th of April, the American vessel CusJiiiig was 
attacked and crippled by a German aeroplane. On the 
first of May, the American vessel GulHight was tor- 
pedoed and sunk by a German submarine, and two or 
more Americans were killed, yet nothing was done. On 
the 7lh of May, the Lusitania was torpedoed and sunk 
l3y a German submarine, and more than one hundred 
Americans and eleven hundred other non-combatants 
were drowned. The very thing which our govern- 
ment had warned Germany she must not do, Germany 
did of set purpose and in the most contemptuous 
and shocking way. Then, when all America was 
stirred to the depths, our Government addressed 
another note to Germany. It repeated its assertion of 
American rights, and renewed its bold declaration of 



21 

purpose. It declared again that the American Govern- 
ment "must hold the Imperial German Government to 
a strict accountability for any infringement of those 
rights, intentional or incidental," and it declared that 
it would not "omit any word or any act necessary to 
the performance of its sacred duty of maintaining the 
rights of the United States and its citizens and of 
safeguarding their free exercise and enjoyment." 

Still nothing was done, and a long and technical 
correspondence ensued; haggling over petty questions 
of detail, every American note growing less and less 
strong and peremptory, until the Arabic was torpedoed 
and sunk, and more American lives were destroyed, 
and still nothing was done, and the correspondence 
continued until the Allied defense against German sub- 
marine warfare made it unprofitable and led to its 
abandonment, and the correspondence is apparently 
approaching its end without securing even that partial 
protection for the future which might be found in an 
admission that the destruction of the Lusitania was 
forbidden by law. The later correspondence has been 
conducted by our State Department with dignity, but 
it has been futile. An admission of liability for dam- 
ages has been secured, but the time for real protection 
to American rights has long since passed. Our govern- 
ment undertook one year ago to prevent the destruc- 
tion of American life by submarine attack, and now 
that the attempt has failed and our citizens are long 
since dead and the system of attack has fallen of its 



22 

own weight, there is small advantage in discussing 
whether we shall or shall not have an admission that it 
was unlawful to kill them. 

The brave words with which we began the con- 
troversy had produced no effect, because they were read 
in the light of two extraordinary events. One was the 
report of the Austrian Ambassador, Mr. Dumba, to 
his government, that when the American note of Feb- 
ruary 10th was received, he asked the Secretary of 
State, Mr. Bryan, whether it meant business, and 
received an answer which satisfied him that it did not, 
but was intended for effect at home in America. 

The other event was the strange and unfortunate 
declaration of the President in a public speech in Phila- 
delphia the fourth day after the sinking of the Lusitania 
that "a man may be too proud to fight." Whatever 
the Austrian Ambassador was in fact told by the Secre- 
tary of State, the impression which he reported was 
supported by the events which followed. Whatever 
the President did mean, his declaration, made in public 
at that solemn time, amid the horror and mourning of 
all our people over the murder of their brethren, was 
accepted the world over as presenting the attitude of 
the American government towards the protection of 
the life and liberty of American citizens in the exercise 
of their just rights, and throughout the world the 
phr^Lse ''too proud to fight" became a by-word of 
derision and contempt for the Government of the 
United States. Later, in another theatre of war — the 



23 

Mediterranean — Austria, and perhaps Turkey also, re- 
sumed the practice. The Ancona and then the Persia 
were destroyed, and more Americans were killed. Why 
should they not resume the practice? They had 
learned to believe that, no matter how shocked the 
American Government might be, its resolution would 
expend itself in words. They had learned to believe 
that it was safe to kill Americans, — and the world 
believed with them. Measured and restrained expres- 
sion, backed to the full by serious purpose, is strong 
and respected. Extreme and belligerent expression, 
unsupported by resolution, is weak and without effect. 
No man should draw a pistol who dares not shoot. The 
government that shakes its fist first and its finger 
afterwards falls into contempt. Our diplomacy has lost 
its authority and influence because we have been brave 
in words and irresolute in action. Men may say that 
the words of our diplomatic notes were justified; men 
may say that our inaction was justified; but no man 
can say that both our words and our inaction were 
wise and creditable. 

I have said that this government lost the moral forces 
of the world by not truly interpreting the spirit of the 
American democracy. 

The American democracy stands for something 
more than beef and cotton and grain and manu- 
factures; stands for something that cannot be 
measured by rates of exchange, and does not rise 



24 

or fall with the balance of trade. The American people 
achieved liberty and schooled themselves to the service 
of justice before they acquired wealth, and they value 
their country's liberty and justice above all their pride 
of possessions. Beneath their comfortable optimism 
and apparent indifference they have a conception of 
their great republic as brave and strong and noble 
to hand down to their children the blessings of free- 
dom and just and equal laws. They have embodied 
their principles of government in fixed rules of right 
conduct which they jealously preserve, and, with the 
instinct of individual freedom, they stand for a govern- 
ment of laws and not of men. They deem that the 
moral laws which formulate the duties of men to- 
wards each other are binding upon nations equally 
with individuals. Informed by their own experi- 
ence, confirmed by their observation of international 
life, they have come to see that the independence 
of nations, the liberty of their peoples, justice and 
humanity, cannot be maintained upon the good 
nature, the kindly feeling, of the strong towards 
the weak; that real independence, real liberty, can- 
not rest upon sufferance; that peace and liberty can 
be preserved only by the authority and observance of 
rules of national conduct founded upon the principles 
of justice and humanity; only by the establishment of 
law among nations, responsive to the enlightened public 
opinion of mankind. To them liberty means not liberty 
for themselves alone, but for all who are oppressed. 



25 

Justice means not justice for themselves alone, but 
a shield for all who are weak against the aggression 
of the strong. When their deeper natures are stirred 
they have a spiritual vision in which the spread and 
perfection of free self government shall rescue the 
humble who toil and endure, from the hideous wrongs 
inflicted upon them by ambition and lust for power, 
and they cherish in their heart of hearts an ideal of 
their country loyal to the mission of liberty for the 
lifting up of the oppressed and bringing in the rule of 
righteousness and peace. 

To this people, the invasion of Belgium brought a 
shock of amazement and horror. The people of 
Belgium were peaceable, industrious, law abiding, self 
governing and free. They had no quarrel with any- 
one on earth. They were attacked by overwhelm- 
ing military power; their country was devastated 
by fire and sw^ord; they were slain by tens of thou- 
sands; their independence was destroyed and their 
liberty was subjected to the rule of an invader, for no 
other cause than that they defended their admitted 
rights. There was no question of fact; there 
was no question of law; there was not a plausible 
pretense of any other cause. The admitted rights 
of Belgium stood in the way of a mightier nation's 
purpose; and Belgium was crushed. When the true 
nature of these events was realized, the people of 
the United States did not hesitate in their feeling 
or in their judgment. Deepest sympathy with down- 



26 

trodden Belgium and stern condemnation of the in- 
vader were practically universal. Wherever there was 
respect for law, it revolted against the wrong done 
to Belgium. Wherever there was true passion for 
liberty, it blazed out for Belgium. Wherever there 
was humanity, it mourned for Belgium. As the real- 
ization of the truth spread, it carried a vague feeling 
that not merely sentiment but loyalty to the eternal 
principles of right was involved in the attitude of 
the American people. And it was so, for if the nations 
were to be indifferent to this first great concrete case 
for a century of military power trampling under 
foot at will the independence, the liberty and 
the life of a peaceful and unoffending people in repudia- 
tion of the faith of treaties and the law of nations 
and of morality and of humanity — if the public opinion 
of the world was to remain silent upon that, neutral 
upon that, then all talk about peace and justice and 
international law and the rights of man, the progress 
of humanity and the spread of liberty is idle patter — 
mere weak sentimentality; then opinion is powerless 
and brute force rules and will rule the world. If no 
difference is recognized between right and wrong, then 
there are no moral standards. There come times in 
the lives of nations as of men when to treat wrong as 
if it were right is treason to the right. 

The American people were entitled not merely to 
feel but to speak concerning the wrong done to Belgium. 
It was not like interference in the internal affairs of 



27 

Mexico or any other nation, for this was an inter- 
national wrong. The law protecting Belgium which 
was violated was our law and the law of every other 
civilized country. For generations we had been urging 
on and helping in its development and establishment. 
We had spent our efforts and our money to that end. 
In legislative resolution and executive declaration and 
diplomatic correspondence and special treaties and in- 
ternational conferences and conventions we had played 
our part in conjunction with other civilized countries in 
making that law. We had bound ourselves by it; we 
had regulated our conduct by it; and we were entitled 
to have other nations observe it. That law was the pro- 
tection of our peace and security. It was our safeguard 
against the necessity of maintaining great armaments 
and wasting our substance in continual readiness for 
war. Our interest in having it maintained as the law 
of nations was a substantial, valuable, permanent in- 
terest, just as real as your interest and mine in having 
maintained and enforced the laws against assault and 
robbery and arson w^iich protect our personal safety 
and property. Moreover, that law was written into a 
solemn and formal convention, signed and ratified by 
Germany and Belgium and France and the United 
States in which those other countries agreed with us 
that the law should be observed. When Belgium was 
invaded that agreement was binding not only morally 
but strictly and technically, because there was then 
no nation a party to the war which was not alio a party 



28 

to the convention. The invasion of Belgium was a 
breach of contract with us for the maintenance of a 
law of nations which was the protection of our peace, 
and the interest which sustained the contract justi- 
fied an objection to its breach. There was no question 
here of interfering in the cjuarrels of Europe. We had 
a right to be neutral and we were neutral as to the 
quarrel between Germany and France but when as an 
incident to the prosecution of that quarrel Germany 
broke the law which we were entitled to have preserved, 
and which she had agreed with us to preserve, we were 
entitled to be heard in the assertion of our own national 
right. With the right to speak came responsibility, 
and with responsibility came duty — duty of govern- 
ment towards all the peaceful men and women in 
America not to acquiesce in the destruction of the law 
which protected them, for if the world assents to this 
great and signal violation of the law of nations, then 
the law of nations no longer exists and we have no pro- 
tection save in subserviency or in force. And with the 
right to speak there came to this, the greatest of neutral 
nations, the greatest of free democracies another duty 
to the cause of liberty and justice for which America 
stands; duty to the ideals of America's nobler nature; 
duty to the honor of her past and the hopes of her 
future; for this law was a bulwark of peace and justice 
to the world; it was a barrier to the spread of war; it 
was a safeguard to the independence and liberty of all 
small, weak states. It marks the progress of civiliza- 



29 

tion. If the world consents to its destruction the world 
turns backwards towards savagery, and America's 
assent would be America's abandonment of the mission 
of democracy. 

Yet the American Government acquiesced in the 
treatment of Belgium and the destruction of the law 
of nations. Without one word of objection or dissent 
to the repudiation of law or the breach of our treaty 
or the violation of justice and humanity in the treat- 
ment of Belgium, our government enjoined upon the 
people of the United States an undiscriminating and 
all-embracing neutrality, and the President admonished 
the people that they must be neutral in all respects 
in act and word and thought and sentiment. We 
were to be not merely neutral as to the quarrels of 
Europe, but neutral as to the treatment of Belgium; 
neutral between right and wrong; neutral between jus- 
tice and injustice; neutral between humanity and 
cruelty; neutral between liberty and oppression. Our 
government did more than acquiesce, for in the first 
Liisitania note, wath the unspeakable horrors of the 
conquest of Belgium still fresh in our minds, on the 
very day after the report of the Bryce Commission on 
Belgian Atrocities, it wrote these w^ords to the Govern- 
ment of Germany: 

"Recalling the humane and enlightened atti- 
"tude hitherto assumed by the Imperial German 
"Government in matters of international right, 
"and particularly with regard to the freedom of 



30 



''ffa. astice and y." 

mis: 

: ':.-.-: :es- 



cspc^-L <i£lu 



^Tlt: 



2ve 



31 

taken policy it shrank from speaking the truth. That 
vital error has carried into every effort of our diplo- 
macy the weakness of a false position. Every note of 
remonstrance against interference with trade, or even 
against the destruction of life, has been projected 
against the background of an abandonment of the prin- 
ciples for which America once stood, and has been 
weakened by the popular feeling among the peoples 
of Europe, whose hearts are lifted up by the impulses 
of patriotism and sacrifice, that America has become 
weak and sordid. 

Such policies as I have described are doubly 
dangerous in their effect upon foreign nations and in 
their effect at home. It is a matter of universal experi- 
ence that a weak and apprehensive treatment of foreign 
affairs invites encroachments upon rights and leads 
to situations in which it is difficult to prevent war, while 
a firm and frank policy at the outset prevents difficult 
situations from arising and tends most strongly to 
preserve peace. On the other hand, if a government 
is to be strong in its diplomacy, its own people must 
be ranged in its support by leadership of opinion in 
a national cause worthy to awaken their patriotism 
and devotion. 

We have not been following the path of peace. We 
have been blindly stumbling along the road that con- 
tinued will lead to inevitable war. Our diplomacy has 
dealt with symptoms and ignored causes. The great 
decisive question upon which our peace depends, is the 



32 

question whether the rule of action appHed to Belgium 
is to be tolerated. If it is tolerated by the civilized 
world, this nation will have to fight for its life. There 
wall be no escape. That is the critical point of defense 
for the peace of America. 

When our government failed to tell the truth about 
Belgium, it lost the opportunity for leadership of the 
moral sense of the American people, and it lost the 
power which a knowledge of that leadership and a 
sympathetic response from the moral sense of the 
world would have given to our diplomacy. When our 
government failed to make any provision whatever for 
defending its rights in case they should be trampled 
upon, it lost the power which a belief in its readiness 
and will to maintain its rights would have given to 
its diplomatic representations. When our government 
gave notice to Germany that it would destroy Amer- 
ican lives and American ships at its peril, our words, 
which would have been potent if sustained by adequate 
preparation to make them good, and by the prestige 
and authority of the moral leadership of a great people 
in a great cause, w^ere treated with a contempt which 
should have been foreseen ; and when our government 
failed to make those words good, its diplomacy was 
bankrupt. 

Upon the record of performance which I have tried 
to describe, will the American people say that the 
Democratic party is entitled to be continued in power. 

The defects of the present Administration arise 



33 

from two distinct causes. The first is the temperament 
and training of the President. The second is the 
incapacity of the Democratic party as it is represented 
in Washington both in the legislative and in the 
executive departments either to originate wise policies 
or to follow them when proposed by others or to 
administer them effectively if they are established. 
The Democrats in Congress are never controlled except 
with a club, and government with a club is always 
spasmodic and defective. 

These characteristics will not change; President 
Wilson cannot change his nature ; the Democratic party 
will not change the character of its representatives; 
and there is no escape from having the same causes of 
weakness which have controlled our government for 
the last three years continued in the future except the 
withdrawal of power from the Democratic party. We 
must not deceive ourselves by assuming that the critical 
period arising from the great war has passed. The 
real dangers and the real tests of the strength of our 
institutions lie before us. The most exacting demands 
upon the wisdom, the spirit, and the courage of our 
country are still to be made. In this great conflict all 
forms of government are on trial, democracy with the 
rest. The principles of national morality are on trial. 
We must play our part in the universal trial whether 
we will or no, for upon the result depends directly the 
question whether our republic can endure. It cannot 
endure upon wealth alone. Its life is the spirit of free 



34 

self government, and if the light of that spirit be 
quenched in the world the American republic will 
disintegrate and fall. 

But what are the people to expect if the Republican 
party is restored to power? 

This much we can say now: 

They may expect with confidence, that their govern- 
ment will meet the economic situation with which we 
must deal immediately upon the close of the war, with 
a policy of moderate but adequate protection to Amer- 
ican industry, based upon ascertained and established 
facts, and inspired by sympathy with all honest Amer- 
ican enterprise and a desire for the prosperity and 
happiness of Americans of every calling and in every 
state. 

They may expect that the government will be ad- 
ministered with the honesty and efficiency which have 
marked Republican administrations in the past, in the 
interest of no section or class, but for the interest of 
the nation as a whole and in every part. 

They may expect that the best possible course for 
the preservation of peace will be followed by a foreign 
policy which, with courtesy and friendliness to all 
nations, is frank and fearless and honest in its asser- 
tion of American rights, and leaves no doubt anywhere 
in the world of America's purpose and courage to pro- 
tect and defend her independence, her territory and 
the lives and just rights of her citizens under the law 
of nations. 



35 

They may expect that their guvernment will stand 
for full and adequate preparation by the American 
people for their own defense. The Republican party 
loves peace and hates war ; it abhors and will never 
submit to military domination; but it is composed of 
men who love our country and who deem that the inde- 
pendence, the liberty, the honor and the opportunity 
of the American democracy are not merely to be talked 
about with weak and flabby sentiment, but are to be 
maintained and safeguarded by the practical power 
of a virile and patriotic people. It is clear sighted 
enough to see that preparation for defense must 
have due relation to the possibilities of attack; 
that under the conditions of modern warfare much 
preparation must be made before a possible attack, 
or all preparation will be impossible after the attack. 
The Republican party stands for a citizenship made 
competent by training to perform the freeman's duty 
of defense for his country. It stands for a regular 
army no larger than is necessary but as large as is 
necessary to serve as a first line, a nucleus, a source of 
instruction and of administration for the army of 
American citizens who may be called upon to defend 
their country. And the Republican party stands for the 
gospel of patriotic service to our country by every 
citizen according to his ability in peace and in war. 
It stands for a reawakening of American patriotism. 
It is not content that while the people of other lands 
are rendering the last full measure of devotion in 



36 

sacrifice and suffering and dying for their countries, 
America shall remain alone dull to the call of country 
and satisfied in the comforts and pleasures of 
prosperity. 

They may expect that assured readiness for de- 
fense will give power to our diplomacy in the mainte- 
nance of peace. 

They may expect that the power and will of a united 
people to defend their country will prevent the applica- 
tion to our peaceful and prosperous land of the hate- 
ful doctrine that among nations might makes right, 
regardless of the rules of justice and humanity. 

Thev may expect that the manifest, potential 
strength and competency of the nation will maintain 
the eft'ectiveness and reality of that great policy of 
national safety which in the declaration of President 
IMonroe forbade the destruction of our security by the 
establishment of hostile military powers in our neigh- 
borhood. 

They may expect that their government will not 
forget, but will ever maintain, the principles of Amer- 
ican freedom, the duties of America to the peace 
and progress of the world, and those ideals of liberty 
and justice for all mankind which above all else make 
the true greatness of the American democracy. 



